About the Authors

  • The Authors and Contributors of "Patent Docs" are patent attorneys and agents, many of whom hold doctorates in a diverse array of disciplines.
2018 Juristant Badge - MBHB_165
Juristat #4 Overall Rank

E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Contact the Docs

Docs on Twitter


Disclaimer

  • "Patent Docs" does not contain any legal advice whatsoever. This weblog is for informational purposes only, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. In addition, nothing on "Patent Docs" constitutes a solicitation for business. This weblog is intended primarily for other attorneys. Moreover, "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.
Juristat_165
Juristat #8 Overall Rank

Pharma-50-transparent_216px_red

« Biden Administration Supports Waiver of IP Protection for COVID-19 Vaccines | Main | The Road to Hell Is Paved with What Everybody Knows »

May 06, 2021

Comments

"The IPO believes that the Administration's decision 'sets a dangerous precedent,' and contends that the 'misinformed approach' will 'not solve the problem it seeks to address.'"

I can certainly agree that the waiver that eventually emerges will not solve any real problems. It is an empty gesture---nothing more than a PR move, really.

Precisely because of its hollowness, however, I am not convinced that it is any sort of "dangerous precedent." It is only as "dangerous" as we make it to be. IPO does not *have* to characterize this as the start down a slippery slope. There is a perfectly fine argument to be made that the COVID19 pandemic is a once-in-a-lifetime *exceptional* circumstance, and that actions taken in response to this exceptional circumstance are an *exception*, not a new normal. We really do ourselves no favors by characterizing this in a way that makes the public *think* of the waiver as a precedent.

A FIRST EVER instance is somehow to be viewed as having zero possible effect on precedent....?

Yes, that Reverse Tinkerbell effect is called to mind.

(and no, I know of no one that is actually holding the strawman position that somehow 'this' is a New Normal)

Now granted, mind you, it IS a fair question as to what possible next calamity might rise to a (at this point undetermined) standard that would invoke ANOTHER exception. There are of course MANY items that cause death world-wide, and some may even want to play a type of "Equity" card to elevate other matters to be considered for any such "NEW" standard for invoking (multiple, or multiply different) levels of IP waiver.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

June 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30